On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump
in,
partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of
appointing
people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate
activity,
and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hi all,
This discussion is happening at the right time for us over here with the Haifa local team. As Samuel said above (he got to meet us last week), we're still in that honeymoon phase with lots of motivation, maybe even exaggerated motivation, that's looking to be put to good use.
I have written to this list before, and to individual Wikimania-related experts both in the Foundation staff and outside it, for the four of us who're coming to Gdansk to use the opportunity to meet with them and learn from their experience. I'm sure that would be very helpful, even if no committee is ever set up.
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use. I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal" "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated experience, but rather with full authority about their answers. I'm thinking mainly about questions related to funding and sponsorship, but not only.
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
See y'all in Gdansk! (I'm still looking for partners for my panel about conflicts between chapters and local editor communities, which has 29 listed interested attendeeds, please contact me if relevant)
Harel Cain Wikimedia Israel (and the Wikimania 2011 team)
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too)
--
who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for this. There were concerns over who or what body can create governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really just a Foundation issue.
I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump
in,
partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of
appointing
people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate
activity,
and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to
do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her role.
An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too)
--
> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect > world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for > this. There were concerns over who or what body can create > governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really > just a Foundation issue. > I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump
in,
partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of
appointing
people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if
we
authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest
to
join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that
still
function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate
activity,
and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
--Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
And talking about devil in the details.. I added *some* details, last night to the checklist set up by Pheobe
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/checklist
And this is less than 50% of what you need to *know* before you start. * Acting* is yet another story.
M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to
do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her role.
An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow <
wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too)
--
>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect >> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for >> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create >> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really >> just a Foundation issue. >> > I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear
who
> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could > authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump
in,
> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not > really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than > strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill
and
> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of
appointing
> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably > people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like > this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if
we
> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced > Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest
to
> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the
direction
> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that
still
> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate
activity,
> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on > structures needed to organize the board's own functions. > > --Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't"
and
simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of
course
we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will
be
unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been in touch with her on such matters. She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.
Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to
do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her role.
An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow <
wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too)
--
>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect >> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for >> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create >> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really >> just a Foundation issue. >> > I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear
who
> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could > authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump
in,
> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not > really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than > strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill
and
> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of
appointing
> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably > people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like > this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if
we
> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced > Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest
to
> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the
direction
> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that
still
> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate
activity,
> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on > structures needed to organize the board's own functions. > > --Michael Snow
Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't"
and
simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where the interested community grants it authority by building the structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of
course
we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works on, it seems tricky.
Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
-- phoebe
p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will
be
unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I'm not sure an acting committee would be what we need here. The local team should, imho, always strive to take that task on itself. The committee we're talking about here however, can keep an eye on progress, both before and after the bidding - and flag for help in case things are not going as scheduled. That way we should be able to catch problems before they become problematic. In Alexandria Delphine also took on that role yes, but that was /before/ she got involved hands-on. She was there both the flagging person and the "solution" - this does not necessarily have to be the case.
If we are going to set up such a committee, I would recommand a very small one, of three people roughly. For specific tasks (program, jury, organization) they can approve committees or whatever, but they should not be doing it themselves. Just keeping an eye on progress. I'm not sure either they necessarily need decision power, although it speaks for itself everybody should take their input damn seriously.
I would vouch for three types of people on such a committee: 1) staff liaison (ie, James) 2) someone who has experience with the broad organizing, ie a former wikimania organizer (someone like phoebe, delphine, patricio etc) 3) someone familiar with program issues (former program committee lead?), ie to overview and advise the program committee
I hope these people are explicitely /not/ involved in the organization itself, to keep them "independent", and they should have access to teamwiki's etc. even if in another language. Also, we should try to get at least two continents on the committee. The committee would have a contact person at staff, the organizing teams and maybe even (if budget gets involved) at board level.
best,
Lodewijk
2010/6/18 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com
I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been in touch with her on such matters. She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.
Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness to
do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her role.
An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy <moushirah@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester james@jdforrester.orgwrote:
On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow < wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- >>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect >>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for >>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create >>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really >>> just a Foundation issue. >>> >> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who >> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could >> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, >> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not >> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than >> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and >> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing >> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably >> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like >> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we >> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced >> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to >> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction >> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still >> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, >> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on >> structures needed to organize the board's own functions. >> >> --Michael Snow > > Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the > Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for > direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where > would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any > particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and > simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently > lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where > the interested community grants it authority by building the > structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized. > > I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am > wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for > forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course > we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but > for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works > on, it seems tricky. > > Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential > glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise > of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How > about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other > interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's > panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned! > > -- phoebe > > p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be > unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-)
James. No, the other one.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
So you are proposing experienced committee keeping a close eye on actions keep help "direct" what goes off track. Sounds good :)
I wasn't personally suggesting an "acting" committee in the sense of taking action themselves. I was just speaking practically of how an *advisory* role is different from a role that is more into *action*, at least on a action planning level..
So how about you become the someoe familiar with program issues?
M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I'm not sure an acting committee would be what we need here. The local team should, imho, always strive to take that task on itself. The committee we're talking about here however, can keep an eye on progress, both before and after the bidding - and flag for help in case things are not going as scheduled. That way we should be able to catch problems before they become problematic. In Alexandria Delphine also took on that role yes, but that was /before/ she got involved hands-on. She was there both the flagging person and the "solution" - this does not necessarily have to be the case.
If we are going to set up such a committee, I would recommand a very small one, of three people roughly. For specific tasks (program, jury, organization) they can approve committees or whatever, but they should not be doing it themselves. Just keeping an eye on progress. I'm not sure either they necessarily need decision power, although it speaks for itself everybody should take their input damn seriously.
I would vouch for three types of people on such a committee:
- staff liaison (ie, James)
- someone who has experience with the broad organizing, ie a former
wikimania organizer (someone like phoebe, delphine, patricio etc) 3) someone familiar with program issues (former program committee lead?), ie to overview and advise the program committee
I hope these people are explicitely /not/ involved in the organization itself, to keep them "independent", and they should have access to teamwiki's etc. even if in another language. Also, we should try to get at least two continents on the committee. The committee would have a contact person at staff, the organizing teams and maybe even (if budget gets involved) at board level.
best,
Lodewijk
2010/6/18 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com
I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been
in touch with her on such matters. She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.
Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness
to do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her
role. An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy < moushirah@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester <james@jdforrester.org > wrote:
> On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow < > wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > >>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC > too) -- > >>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect > >>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent > for > >>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create > >>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't > really > >>> just a Foundation issue. > >>> > >> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear > who > >> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could > >> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to > jump in, > >> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is > not > >> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than > >> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill > and > >> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of > appointing > >> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably > >> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee > like > >> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But > if we > >> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced > >> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of > interest to > >> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the > direction > >> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that > still > >> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate > activity, > >> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more > on > >> structures needed to organize the board's own functions. > >> > >> --Michael Snow > > > > Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the > > Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for > > direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where > > would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had > any > > particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" > and > > simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently > > lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where > > the interested community grants it authority by building the > > structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally > recognized. > > > > I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am > > wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for > > forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of > course > > we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, > but > > for areas that also require overlap with things that the office > works > > on, it seems tricky. > > > > Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential > > glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a > reprise > > of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How > > about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other > > interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's > > panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned! > > > > -- phoebe > > > > p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will > be > > unstoppable. Powered by James^2. > > Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to > refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-) > > James. No, the other one. > -- > James D. Forrester > jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com > [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
well, I do think only an advisory committee need
my primary concern is how the knowledge from the previous wikimanias can be collect and pass
as I see some problem in this year's ppl from ex-wikimanias wanna help had bunch of input wanna share
but seem no such channel to share :P
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 23:02, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I'm not sure an acting committee would be what we need here. The local team should, imho, always strive to take that task on itself. The committee we're talking about here however, can keep an eye on progress, both before and after the bidding - and flag for help in case things are not going as scheduled. That way we should be able to catch problems before they become problematic. In Alexandria Delphine also took on that role yes, but that was /before/ she got involved hands-on. She was there both the flagging person and the "solution" - this does not necessarily have to be the case.
If we are going to set up such a committee, I would recommand a very small one, of three people roughly. For specific tasks (program, jury, organization) they can approve committees or whatever, but they should not be doing it themselves. Just keeping an eye on progress. I'm not sure either they necessarily need decision power, although it speaks for itself everybody should take their input damn seriously.
I would vouch for three types of people on such a committee:
- staff liaison (ie, James)
- someone who has experience with the broad organizing, ie a former
wikimania organizer (someone like phoebe, delphine, patricio etc) 3) someone familiar with program issues (former program committee lead?), ie to overview and advise the program committee
I hope these people are explicitely /not/ involved in the organization itself, to keep them "independent", and they should have access to teamwiki's etc. even if in another language. Also, we should try to get at least two continents on the committee. The committee would have a contact person at staff, the organizing teams and maybe even (if budget gets involved) at board level.
best,
Lodewijk
2010/6/18 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com
I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been
in touch with her on such matters. She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.
Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness
to do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her
role. An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy < moushirah@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester <james@jdforrester.org > wrote:
> On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow < > wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > >>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC > too) -- > >>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect > >>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent > for > >>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create > >>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't > really > >>> just a Foundation issue. > >>> > >> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear > who > >> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could > >> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to > jump in, > >> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is > not > >> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than > >> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill > and > >> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of > appointing > >> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably > >> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee > like > >> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But > if we > >> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced > >> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of > interest to > >> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the > direction > >> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that > still > >> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate > activity, > >> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more > on > >> structures needed to organize the board's own functions. > >> > >> --Michael Snow > > > > Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the > > Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for > > direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where > > would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had > any > > particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" > and > > simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently > > lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where > > the interested community grants it authority by building the > > structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally > recognized. > > > > I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am > > wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for > > forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of > course > > we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, > but > > for areas that also require overlap with things that the office > works > > on, it seems tricky. > > > > Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential > > glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a > reprise > > of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How > > about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other > > interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's > > panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned! > > > > -- phoebe > > > > p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will > be > > unstoppable. Powered by James^2. > > Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to > refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-) > > James. No, the other one. > -- > James D. Forrester > jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com > [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in this thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year. And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here. The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.
-- phoebe
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I'm not sure an acting committee would be what we need here. The local team should, imho, always strive to take that task on itself. The committee we're talking about here however, can keep an eye on progress, both before and after the bidding - and flag for help in case things are not going as scheduled. That way we should be able to catch problems before they become problematic. In Alexandria Delphine also took on that role yes, but that was /before/ she got involved hands-on. She was there both the flagging person and the "solution" - this does not necessarily have to be the case.
If we are going to set up such a committee, I would recommand a very small one, of three people roughly. For specific tasks (program, jury, organization) they can approve committees or whatever, but they should not be doing it themselves. Just keeping an eye on progress. I'm not sure either they necessarily need decision power, although it speaks for itself everybody should take their input damn seriously.
I would vouch for three types of people on such a committee:
- staff liaison (ie, James)
- someone who has experience with the broad organizing, ie a former
wikimania organizer (someone like phoebe, delphine, patricio etc) 3) someone familiar with program issues (former program committee lead?), ie to overview and advise the program committee
I hope these people are explicitely /not/ involved in the organization itself, to keep them "independent", and they should have access to teamwiki's etc. even if in another language. Also, we should try to get at least two continents on the committee. The committee would have a contact person at staff, the organizing teams and maybe even (if budget gets involved) at board level.
best,
Lodewijk
2010/6/18 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com
I do know Delphine personally (well, at least to some extent) and have been
in touch with her on such matters. She's definitely another option for assuming the role of formal point of contact for local Wikimania teams. We just need someone (Sue?) to act and appoint someone to this role.
Moushira, I would be very happy for us to learn from the experience of the Alexandria 2008 team. Unfortunately I couldn't make it there. On a personal level, if we see real cooperation between the Egyptian and Israeli teams - that would be a true achievement. We'll be very happy for as many of you as possible to come to Haifa.
Harel
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Harel,
Again, I'm not sure that the formality of a committee is a necessity, if
that committee doesn't have a very clear role and is not put to optimal use.
Exactly. Organizing Wikimania needs action. Will the committee act? ...
Currently, and please everyone correct me if I'm wrong, there's not even a single person on the WMF staff that can be considered such a point of contact. Names that come to mind include Cary, James Owen and Samuel Klein, but this is not the job definition of any of them.
If one or two people who have the proper background and the willingness
to do it can somehow be assigned (by the board? by Sue?) to act as formal point of contact for the local teams, that IMHO is more effective than a big committee.
That's what I meant when I brought up the name of Délphine and her
role. An experienced and executive person is required. I am not sure if you personally know her. I was among the team of Wikimania2008, and definitly someone of that role was required. Enthusiasm and some knowledge are wonderful, but they don't get things done. The amount of details related to organizing such a conference need experience and knowledge.
Devil is in the details, so it takes another devil to watch out for them.
I am unfortunately not going to make it to Poland in 2010, but I would be more than happy to contribute in discussion/meetings from distant.
Good luck in 2011 Harel M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Moushira Elamrawy < moushirah@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think it is a good idea
as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation though committee is not necessary but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism
anyway if really such committee will start I would like to be part of it
Jerry~雨雨 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com MSN: jeromyuchan@msn.com also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Laudamus quae laudentur Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester <james@jdforrester.org > wrote:
> On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow < > wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > >>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC > too) -- > >>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect > >>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent > for > >>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create > >>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't > really > >>> just a Foundation issue. > >>> > >> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear > who > >> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could > >> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to > jump in, > >> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is > not > >> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than > >> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill > and > >> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of > appointing > >> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably > >> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee > like > >> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But > if we > >> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced > >> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of > interest to > >> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the > direction > >> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that > still > >> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate > activity, > >> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more > on > >> structures needed to organize the board's own functions. > >> > >> --Michael Snow > > > > Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the > > Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for > > direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where > > would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had > any > > particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" > and > > simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently > > lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where > > the interested community grants it authority by building the > > structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally > recognized. > > > > I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am > > wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for > > forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of > course > > we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, > but > > for areas that also require overlap with things that the office > works > > on, it seems tricky. > > > > Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential > > glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a > reprise > > of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How > > about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other > > interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's > > panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned! > > > > -- phoebe > > > > p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will > be > > unstoppable. Powered by James^2. > > Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to > refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-) > > James. No, the other one. > -- > James D. Forrester > jdforrester@wikimedia.org | jdforrester@gmail.com > [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
phoebe ayers wrote:
Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in this thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year. And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here. The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.
Speaking in general support for this proposal, I too think that it's important for the organization of particular Wikimanias to remain with the local community. Pulling together the documentation and the planning guide will be an important ongoing task for this group, but the committee should be able to draw on a variety of experiences as and when necessity arises, and local committees discover a deficiency. For this year it was important that Austin was able to step in when it was discovered that registration was not being organized. It's one thing to respond when a local groip asks for help, but it's equally important to be aware that lack of experience may mean that those local groups may not know they're in trouble until it's too late. Thus, the planning guide should also include a timeline for when things must be done. If registration needs to be open two months before the event, and has an impact on the ability of attendees to obtain visas, the committee needs to be in a position to act quickly when things are not being done.
Harel said:
I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal" "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated experience, but rather with full authority about their answers.
The problem with that approach is that the committee may not be familiar with local circumstances, and different committee members may be the best ones to ask depending on the nature of the problem. No committee could have come up with the kind of excellent attendee's party that we experienced in Alexandria, or could have come up with the museum venue that we had in Boston. Harel's suggestion carries the risk of undue dependance on the committee or WMF staff.
When the selection committee chooses a site it is expressing a degree of confidence that the local group will be able to carry through with its mandate. If it has no confidence in any of the applicants it is free to reject them all, though the consequences of that would be uncertain. By the time of its decision it should also be aware of potential difficulties where additional help may be needed.
Ray
Let me just point out in response to Ray: the "one stop shop" contact person on the Foundation staff will be answerable to Foundation-related questions (funding, sponsorship, program, scholarships) etc. Of course things which are local by nature such as entertainment programs, catering, venue, local government relations etc. are better answered by the local team (we can learn from others' experience, but the solution is local by nature). It's just that as a local team we're not too sure who to ask about the Foundation-related issues, and we need a better address for that.
Harel
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in this thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year. And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here. The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.
Speaking in general support for this proposal, I too think that it's important for the organization of particular Wikimanias to remain with the local community. Pulling together the documentation and the planning guide will be an important ongoing task for this group, but the committee should be able to draw on a variety of experiences as and when necessity arises, and local committees discover a deficiency. For this year it was important that Austin was able to step in when it was discovered that registration was not being organized. It's one thing to respond when a local groip asks for help, but it's equally important to be aware that lack of experience may mean that those local groups may not know they're in trouble until it's too late. Thus, the planning guide should also include a timeline for when things must be done. If registration needs to be open two months before the event, and has an impact on the ability of attendees to obtain visas, the committee needs to be in a position to act quickly when things are not being done.
Harel said:
I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal" "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated experience, but rather with full authority about their answers.
The problem with that approach is that the committee may not be familiar with local circumstances, and different committee members may be the best ones to ask depending on the nature of the problem. No committee could have come up with the kind of excellent attendee's party that we experienced in Alexandria, or could have come up with the museum venue that we had in Boston. Harel's suggestion carries the risk of undue dependance on the committee or WMF staff.
When the selection committee chooses a site it is expressing a degree of confidence that the local group will be able to carry through with its mandate. If it has no confidence in any of the applicants it is free to reject them all, though the consequences of that would be uncertain. By the time of its decision it should also be aware of potential difficulties where additional help may be needed.
Ray
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Right, and the nature of what the Foundation has done has changed over the last few years, so that's actually been in flux (what was true for us in 2006 is totally different now, re: scholarships etc). Which makes it even harder to get an authoritative answer!
Otherwise, I totally agree with Ray. There is no group/body/individual providing that kind of comprehensive timeline support now, unless someone decides to step in and make it their job, and it would be nice to see things a bit more organized on that front. Basically: the community & the Foundation have certain expectations for Wikimania, but it's up to the local team to implement them. The bid criteria reflect these expectations pretty well, I think, but it might be nice if they were more explicit.
-- phoebe
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com wrote:
Let me just point out in response to Ray: the "one stop shop" contact person on the Foundation staff will be answerable to Foundation-related questions (funding, sponsorship, program, scholarships) etc. Of course things which are local by nature such as entertainment programs, catering, venue, local government relations etc. are better answered by the local team (we can learn from others' experience, but the solution is local by nature). It's just that as a local team we're not too sure who to ask about the Foundation-related issues, and we need a better address for that.
Harel
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.netwrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact within the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in this thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance, Kul works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of Wikimania and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after year. And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a group rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for here. The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other organizational actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.
Speaking in general support for this proposal, I too think that it's important for the organization of particular Wikimanias to remain with the local community. Pulling together the documentation and the planning guide will be an important ongoing task for this group, but the committee should be able to draw on a variety of experiences as and when necessity arises, and local committees discover a deficiency. For this year it was important that Austin was able to step in when it was discovered that registration was not being organized. It's one thing to respond when a local groip asks for help, but it's equally important to be aware that lack of experience may mean that those local groups may not know they're in trouble until it's too late. Thus, the planning guide should also include a timeline for when things must be done. If registration needs to be open two months before the event, and has an impact on the ability of attendees to obtain visas, the committee needs to be in a position to act quickly when things are not being done.
Harel said:
I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal" "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated experience, but rather with full authority about their answers.
The problem with that approach is that the committee may not be familiar with local circumstances, and different committee members may be the best ones to ask depending on the nature of the problem. No committee could have come up with the kind of excellent attendee's party that we experienced in Alexandria, or could have come up with the museum venue that we had in Boston. Harel's suggestion carries the risk of undue dependance on the committee or WMF staff.
When the selection committee chooses a site it is expressing a degree of confidence that the local group will be able to carry through with its mandate. If it has no confidence in any of the applicants it is free to reject them all, though the consequences of that would be uncertain. By the time of its decision it should also be aware of potential difficulties where additional help may be needed.
Ray
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I do not have a lot to add to this conversation as I believe most everyone has been weighing in with ideas and insights that are much inline with anything I would contribute. Mostly I want to share that I fully support the creation of a committee or some kind of oversight group which would not be responsible to create or develop Wikimania every year, but would be a resource to the organizing team to set expectations, timelines, assist with the obtainment of keynote speakers, and develop relationship with the Foundation and community to assist in the collaborative conference the Wikimedia community has created. I do however want to make sure anyone who sits on this committee/group is fully engaged and considers the responsibility heavily and plans to work throughout the year to ensure local teams have the resources they need and are fulfilling the commitment they made when creating and winning a Wikimania bid. It would be reassuring not only to the Wikimedia Foundation but to the Wikimedia Community to know that a devoted group is ensuring and strategically thinking about the success of not only individual Wikimania's but the future of the conference for years to come. Currently we have a local planning teams that create a bid and think about Wikimania for a year and then are done with their work and move on to other projects, no one thinks about the future of Wikimania -- do we want to always be a small conference or do we aspired to see in 5-10 years a conference over 5,000 plus attendees, do we believe in rotation or do we pick bids that are strongest, do we make Wikimania an outreach conference or keep it internal and community focused... A body fully devoted to answering these questions in my opinion would ensure the success and future of the conference, and provide value well beyond the scope of Wikimania.
Over the past year and a half I have been invested in the success an organization of Wikimania, although some of this falls under the scope of my position for the Foundation most of my contributions to the conferences and jury is as a volunteer outside of the scope of my work and work hours. I believe strongly that Wikimania is an important event that not only allows Wikimedians to share with each other but also is a platform to share with the world the capability of the Wikimedia Community. I as a person who came to know Wikimedia not as a volunteer but as an applicant for a job, attending events like Wikimania has and continues to humble me when I see the work and dedication of our volunteers. That is something I truly feel we should share and I think Wikimania can help do that in communities throughout the world.
I would be happy to sit on or help any oversight group that would be committed to the long-term success of Wikimania. I thank Phoebe for her efforts and dedication to this project and look forward to more conversations in the days and weeks to come.
James T. Owen
James Owen Executive Assistant Wikimedia Foundation Office +1.415.839.6885 x 604 Mobile +1.415.509.5444 Fax +1.415.882.0495 Email- jowen@wikimedia.org Website- www.wikimediafoundation.org
On Jun 20, 2010, at 12:09 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
Right, and the nature of what the Foundation has done has changed over the last few years, so that's actually been in flux (what was true for us in 2006 is totally different now, re: scholarships etc). Which makes it even harder to get an authoritative answer!
Otherwise, I totally agree with Ray. There is no group/body/ individual providing that kind of comprehensive timeline support now, unless someone decides to step in and make it their job, and it would be nice to see things a bit more organized on that front. Basically: the community & the Foundation have certain expectations for Wikimania, but it's up to the local team to implement them. The bid criteria reflect these expectations pretty well, I think, but it might be nice if they were more explicit.
-- phoebe
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com wrote: Let me just point out in response to Ray: the "one stop shop" contact person on the Foundation staff will be answerable to Foundation-related questions (funding, sponsorship, program, scholarships) etc. Of course things which are local by nature such as entertainment programs, catering, venue, local government relations etc. are better answered by the local team (we can learn from others' experience, but the solution is local by nature). It's just that as a local team we're not too sure who to ask about the Foundation-related issues, and we need a better address for that.
Harel
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: phoebe ayers wrote:
Yes. Let me be extremely clear: this committee would not organize Wikimania. Full stop. That is, and has always been, the job of the local team that gets appointed to run the bid.
What Harel is saying that there isn't a formal point of contact
within
the WMF, which is true. Yes, every person who has been named in
this
thread so far has worked on Wikimania in the past, and/or has a specific area of expertise. What a *committee* would be good for is making sure that all of these connections are made. For instance,
Kul
works on sponsorships. He is one direct point of contact within WMF for Wikimania-related funding issues. But he doesn't -- shouldn't -- answer all of your questions about Wikimania. Conversely, Delphine, me, Samuel, and a bunch of other people know the history of
Wikimania
and roughly what is going on -- but I don't think any of us want to keep volunteering to be on the organization committee year after
year.
And if Delphine or I are unavailable for some reason, that shouldn't mean the local team can't get their questions answered. Having a
group
rather than just one or two people makes it more failsafe.
So yes, keeping a general eye on progress is what I would go for
here.
The "actions" of the committee would only consist in that -- getting reports, making sure questions are answered. All other
organizational
actions -- the ones that Moushira are fondly remembering ;) -- would be done by the local team, as ever.
Speaking in general support for this proposal, I too think that it's important for the organization of particular Wikimanias to remain with the local community. Pulling together the documentation and the planning guide will be an important ongoing task for this group, but the committee should be able to draw on a variety of experiences as and when necessity arises, and local committees discover a deficiency. For this year it was important that Austin was able to step in when it was discovered that registration was not being organized. It's one thing to respond when a local groip asks for help, but it's equally important to be aware that lack of experience may mean that those local groups may not know they're in trouble until it's too late. Thus, the planning guide should also include a timeline for when things must be done. If registration needs to be open two months before the event, and has an impact on the ability of attendees to obtain visas, the committee needs to be in a position to act quickly when things are not being done.
Harel said:
I'm more confident, thought, that we're missing one or more "formal" "one-stop-shop" points of contact, people who can answer us in an on-going and interactive manner not only based on their accumulated experience, but rather with full authority about their answers.
The problem with that approach is that the committee may not be familiar with local circumstances, and different committee members may be the best ones to ask depending on the nature of the problem. No committee could have come up with the kind of excellent attendee's party that we experienced in Alexandria, or could have come up with the museum venue that we had in Boston. Harel's suggestion carries the risk of undue dependance on the committee or WMF staff.
When the selection committee chooses a site it is expressing a degree of confidence that the local group will be able to carry through with its mandate. If it has no confidence in any of the applicants it is free to reject them all, though the consequences of that would be uncertain. By the time of its decision it should also be aware of potential difficulties where additional help may be needed.
Ray
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
phoebe ayers wrote:
Right, and the nature of what the Foundation has done has changed over the last few years, so that's actually been in flux (what was true for us in 2006 is totally different now, re: scholarships etc). Which makes it even harder to get an authoritative answer!
That makes them out to be just like a government. ;-)
Basically: the community & the Foundation have certain expectations for Wikimania, but it's up to the local team to implement them.
Indeed, the insidious thing about expectations is that those of whom they are expected can be blissfully unaware of that fact, and are easily blind-sided
In a much larger context, the internet has provided opportunities for unprecedented participation in democratic processes, but not without the irony that those with that newfound power often ask their adversaries what to do with it.
Ray
Hi
Just enquiring whether the proposed wiki train plan is still on.
Regards, Abbas.
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:01:13 -0700 From: saintonge@telus.net To: wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?
phoebe ayers wrote:
Right, and the nature of what the Foundation has done has changed over the last few years, so that's actually been in flux (what was true for us in 2006 is totally different now, re: scholarships etc). Which makes it even harder to get an authoritative answer!
That makes them out to be just like a government. ;-)
Basically: the community & the Foundation have certain expectations for Wikimania, but it's up to the local team to implement them.
Indeed, the insidious thing about expectations is that those of whom they are expected can be blissfully unaware of that fact, and are easily blind-sided
In a much larger context, the internet has provided opportunities for unprecedented participation in democratic processes, but not without the irony that those with that newfound power often ask their adversaries what to do with it.
Ray
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
2010/6/21 Abbas Mahmoud abbasjnr@hotmail.com:
Hi
Just enquiring whether the proposed wiki train plan is still on.
It is, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Wiki-train .
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
My oppinion as an actual working member of this year Wikimania, would be to discuss this after the venue. If everything is finished, the leading team will write a report about the things which happened positivly and negativly. I think on this base it would be more revealing to discuss alterations in familiar Wikimania structure of planning.
Best
Juliana General manager Wikimania 2010 Gdansk ++ http://www.wikimania2010.pl
2010/6/21 Juliana da Costa José juliana@wikimania2010.pl:
My oppinion as an actual working member of this year Wikimania, would be to discuss this after the venue. If everything is finished, the leading team will write a report about the things which happened positivly and negativly. I think on this base it would be more revealing to discuss alterations in familiar Wikimania structure of planning.
Every year there has been a plan to write a report afterwards on what went well, what didn't, etc.. Has such a report ever actually been written? I've never seen one (sometimes we get the results of a survey of attendees with some minimal analysis, but that's about it). It would be really good if we could get such a report, especially this year since there definitely have been things that have gone wrong. (I know it is very tempting, and understandable, to collapse in exhaustion once the event is finished and never get around to writing the report - I've done exactly the same thing before - so I'm not blaming anyone, just emphasising how useful such a report would be.)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/21 Juliana da Costa José juliana@wikimania2010.pl:
My oppinion as an actual working member of this year Wikimania, would be to discuss this after the venue. If everything is finished, the leading team will write a report about the things which happened positivly and negativly. I think on this base it would be more revealing to discuss alterations in familiar Wikimania structure of planning.
Every year there has been a plan to write a report afterwards on what went well, what didn't, etc.. Has such a report ever actually been written? I've never seen one (sometimes we get the results of a survey of attendees with some minimal analysis, but that's about it). It would be really good if we could get such a report, especially this year since there definitely have been things that have gone wrong. (I know it is very tempting, and understandable, to collapse in exhaustion once the event is finished and never get around to writing the report - I've done exactly the same thing before - so I'm not blaming anyone, just emphasising how useful such a report would be.)
There have been post-mortems every year (with varying degrees of formality and levels of participation); these have resulted in a handful of private reports to the Foundation & within the org team (and many more sets of informal notes). Basically, every year the organizers have sat down, sometimes with other people and sometimes not, and talked about the conference afterwards; ideally this gets written up. I personally have four sets of these notes tucked away in various notebooks, documents, etc....
What there has never been is a publicly available report, or summation of these meetings, that anyone ever got around to posting for the rest of the world to see -- I think that's the part where exhaustion comes into play :) It's hard to overstate how sick of Wikimania one is after organizing the conference! And after a month or two when everyone's recovered, you're usually on to picking up the rest of your life and there hasn't been any outside impetus to revisit the report to make it publicly available. That might be another area where gentle prodding from a wikimania committee could help. Otherwise it's just always a low priority.
As for Juliana's note, it would be great to have a report from 2010, for sure; my ideas about a Wikimania committee are actually not based on the experiences of any particular year, however, but rather needs that I've seen reoccur from year to year. There are certain patterns that we can identify and probably make easier for future organizers, rather than banging our heads against the same wall every time. Any structure should take into account the experiences of all the years, which have all been different but all had similarities too, and our hopes for the future besides.
-- phoebe
-- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *
On 21 June 2010 19:54, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There have been post-mortems every year (with varying degrees of formality and levels of participation); these have resulted in a handful of private reports to the Foundation & within the org team (and many more sets of informal notes). Basically, every year the organizers have sat down, sometimes with other people and sometimes not, and talked about the conference afterwards; ideally this gets written up. I personally have four sets of these notes tucked away in various notebooks, documents, etc....
What there has never been is a publicly available report, or summation of these meetings, that anyone ever got around to posting for the rest of the world to see -- I think that's the part where exhaustion comes into play :)
The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the future, so it isn't really worth having one if you don't publish the results for future teams can learn from them.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 21 June 2010 19:54, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There have been post-mortems every year (with varying degrees of formality and levels of participation); these have resulted in a handful of private reports to the Foundation & within the org team (and many more sets of informal notes). Basically, every year the organizers have sat down, sometimes with other people and sometimes not, and talked about the conference afterwards; ideally this gets written up. I personally have four sets of these notes tucked away in various notebooks, documents, etc....
What there has never been is a publicly available report, or summation of these meetings, that anyone ever got around to posting for the rest of the world to see -- I think that's the part where exhaustion comes into play :)
The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the future, so it isn't really worth having one if you don't publish the results for future teams can learn from them.
It's actually also useful for all the people involved to have a final discussion about what has happened; and the results of these conversations have gotten translated in various ways: to the bid criteria, to the documentation that is being built on meta, to the structures that the WMF has set up for supporting Wikimania, etc. But I am not disagreeing with you -- at all! -- that a formal public post-mortem report after the conference would be very helpful. I'm just explaining what has actually happened in practice :)
-- phoebe
--- El lun 21-jun-10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com escribió:
The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the future, so it isn't really worth having one if you don't publish the results for future teams can learn from them.
I just wanted to remind everyone that Wikimania 2009 did create a publicly available post-mortem. I recommend both th Gdansk and Haifa teams to take a look at it:
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem
Cheers, MarianoC.-
On 21 June 2010 21:11, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
--- El lun 21-jun-10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com escribió:
The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the future, so it isn't really worth having one if you don't publish the results for future teams can learn from them.
I just wanted to remind everyone that Wikimania 2009 did create a publicly available post-mortem. I recommend both th Gdansk and Haifa teams to take a look at it:
Yes, there is that and it is much better than nothing, but I'd like to see much more detailed post-mortems. That's mostly just the results of a survey of attendees and some analysis of it and conclusions drawn from it.
Such a survey is a very useful part of a post-mortem, but it shouldn't be the basis of the whole thing. There isn't, for example, anything in there saying whether you managed to stay in budget or not and if not, why not and by how much you went over. That kind of information would be extremely useful for people putting together bids (since the things you overspent on or forgot to budget for are likely to be things they'll underestimate the cost of, or forget, too).
--- El lun 21-jun-10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com escribió:
De: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Wikimania-l] [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee? Para: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 21 de junio de 2010, 17:19 On 21 June 2010 21:11, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
--- El lun 21-jun-10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
escribió:
The idea of a post-mortem is to learn for the
future, so it
isn't really worth having one if you don't publish
the results
for future teams can learn from them.
I just wanted to remind everyone that Wikimania 2009
did create a publicly available post-mortem. I recommend both th Gdansk and Haifa teams to take a look at it:
Yes, there is that and it is much better than nothing, but I'd like to see much more detailed post-mortems.
I don't know about other Wikimanias, but I guess they also had an internal postmortem. I don't think you can expect an organization to disclose its internal affairs like that, but I'm sure any Wikimania organization will be happy to share its rights and wrongs with any future organizing committee.
That's mostly just the results of a survey of attendees and some analysis of it and conclusions drawn from it.
Actually, the conclusions[1] are drawn not only from the survey but also from personal comments and the internal review (though it might not be so obvious). I suggest you read it in full.
A "How to organize a Wiki-event" document with knowledge taken from "the spirit of pasts Wikimedias" could be a good start point. Perhaps a job for the "Permanent Committe for supporting the organization of Wikimania events" ?
MarianoC.-
[1]http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Postmortem/Conclusions
On 21 June 2010 21:34, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
I don't know about other Wikimanias, but I guess they also had an internal postmortem. I don't think you can expect an organization to disclose its internal affairs like that, but I'm sure any Wikimania organization will be happy to share its rights and wrongs with any future organizing committee.
I completely disagree. I don't think a Wikimania local team should have "internal affairs" - Wikimania is an annual event of the Wikimedia movement, not a one-off event of a small group. The rest of the movement is not "external" and shouldn't be treated as such.
On 21 June 2010 20:56, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2010 21:34, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
I don't know about other Wikimanias, but I guess they also had an
internal postmortem. I don't think you can expect an organization to disclose its internal affairs like that, but I'm sure any Wikimania organization will be happy to share its rights and wrongs with any future organizing committee.
I completely disagree. I don't think a Wikimania local team should have "internal affairs" - Wikimania is an annual event of the Wikimedia movement, not a one-off event of a small group. The rest of the movement is not "external" and shouldn't be treated as such.
If you don't allow for private discussion and post-mortems within a group
of people, then the likelyhood of effective management and feedback decreases. This is not because the Wikimania team is being secretive, but because talking only amongst yourselves that know each other best gives a place to air honest feedback in a way that would not happen if that feeback between the team was forced to be public. Furthermore, there is sensitive information about things like sponsors, finances, relationships between people that simply don't need to be made public as it would cause more harm than good. Every chapter has a private executive channel, and even the Wikimedia movement has an internal mailing list - none of these imply that the rest of the community is "external" but simply that some things are best kept private. Furthermore, you can't actually force people to talk in public, all you do is drive it underground turning what is a legitimate internal discusison into a cabal.
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On 21 June 2010 22:25, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't allow for private discussion and post-mortems within a group of people, then the likelyhood of effective management and feedback decreases. This is not because the Wikimania team is being secretive, but because talking only amongst yourselves that know each other best gives a place to air honest feedback in a way that would not happen if that feeback between the team was forced to be public. Furthermore, there is sensitive information about things like sponsors, finances, relationships between people that simply don't need to be made public as it would cause more harm than good. Every chapter has a private executive channel, and even the Wikimedia movement has an internal mailing list - none of these imply that the rest of the community is "external" but simply that some things are best kept private. Furthermore, you can't actually force people to talk in public, all you do is drive it underground turning what is a legitimate internal discusison into a cabal.
The discussion can happen in private, but the results need to be public or there is really no point. The people discussing it will probably never run a Wikimania again, so they don't really need to know what did and didn't work. Anything that needs to be confidential can be redacted from the public version and the un-redacted version only shared with people that specifically need to know (teams organising future Wikimanias, and maybe those bidding to organise them).
I wouldn't be too sure of that. You need to consider who the targeted audience is for your feedback. I would guess the organizers of the coming year(s). So a postmortem would make most sense on the wikimaniateamwiki (yes, another internal wiki). I had in 2008 for example much use of the program committee postmortem documentation of 2007 in Taiwan - even though it was not public. As long as it reaches the right people. It is a lot of effort to make a public version in some cases, and then I really dont see the point of obligating people to make such a version - especially if the consequence of that is that the chance they actually will do that, decreases.
Lodewijk
2010/6/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 21 June 2010 22:25, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't allow for private discussion and post-mortems within a group
of
people, then the likelyhood of effective management and feedback
decreases.
This is not because the Wikimania team is being secretive, but because talking only amongst yourselves that know each other best gives a place
to
air honest feedback in a way that would not happen if that feeback
between
the team was forced to be public. Furthermore, there is sensitive information about things like sponsors, finances, relationships between people that simply don't need to be made public as it would cause more
harm
than good. Every chapter has a private executive channel, and even the Wikimedia movement has an internal mailing list - none of these imply
that
the rest of the community is "external" but simply that some things are
best
kept private. Furthermore, you can't actually force people to talk in public, all you do is drive it underground turning what is a legitimate internal discusison into a cabal.
The discussion can happen in private, but the results need to be public or there is really no point. The people discussing it will probably never run a Wikimania again, so they don't really need to know what did and didn't work. Anything that needs to be confidential can be redacted from the public version and the un-redacted version only shared with people that specifically need to know (teams organising future Wikimanias, and maybe those bidding to organise them).
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 22 June 2010 01:20, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure of that. You need to consider who the targeted audience is for your feedback. I would guess the organizers of the coming year(s). So a postmortem would make most sense on the wikimaniateamwiki (yes, another internal wiki). I had in 2008 for example much use of the program committee postmortem documentation of 2007 in Taiwan - even though it was not public. As long as it reaches the right people. It is a lot of effort to make a public version in some cases, and then I really dont see the point of obligating people to make such a version - especially if the consequence of that is that the chance they actually will do that, decreases.
I think once you've written a report it isn't too difficult to go through it and redact the very few things that can't be made public (it's not trivial, of course, but it's not too difficult). It's writing the thing in the first place that is hard work. Anyway, the redaction comes at the end, so if that bit ends up not getting done then you've still got the un-redacted version for those that really need it. If there isn't a public version, though, I think it is essential that bid teams are given access to the private one - once the bid is finished, it may well be too late to fix some problems that previous teams have learnt from.
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org